[ad_1]
In security studies, it is not uncommon for politicians and public authorities to present certain problems as existentially threatening and requiring non-traditional solutions. You can find numerous examples of politics, where the threat of one phenomenon or another, the so-called security, has become a precondition for solving the problem more quickly.
However, while a security act can help mobilize the resources and speed necessary to address real threats, it can also be a tool to manipulate or abuse a growing threat. For example, under the guise of the need for security, it is possible to use atypical measures that are supposed to be necessary to deal with an emergency for longer than necessary, or simply to continue to consider national security issues much more important than human rights. . or freedom of expression.
It is in this context that the initiative of the Ministry of the Interior (MIA), which did not receive the support of the Prime Minister, for the detention of foreigners who entered Lithuania illegally for more than half a year could be considered. year, but indefinitely. In this context, the possibility for journalists to work on the Lithuanian-Belarusian border could be assessed and limited for a time. Finally, Minister A. Bilotaitė’s criticisms of lawyers representing five Afghans who entered Lithuania and had a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) raise similar questions. In the last speech, the minister seemed to make it clear that the aforementioned lawyers do not seem to defend human rights as much as they breach the Lithuanian border attacked by illegal immigrants.
Professor Tomas Janeliūnas, from the Vilnius University Institute of International Relations and Political Science (VU TSPMI), notes that the crisis of illegal immigrants on the border between Lithuania and Belarus that emerged in the summer has an obvious emphasis on security . While, according to him, the fact that Minister A. Bilotaitė and individual institutions have taken steps to threaten the situation is not unusual or bad under current conditions, some highlights of the crisis may raise the question of whether the process of Bullying still has a real basis in all respects. In other words, are politicians and institutions responsible for not abusing us by saying that we still have to choose between the security attacked by the Lukashenko regime and the routine values of liberal democracy?
“It just came to our knowledge then. On the one hand, this can be understood and perhaps even justified, because the situation is extraordinary and atypical for us. We have not encountered this before and this requires a very quick response. taken at typical speeds and according to typical procedures does not always lead to a quick result. For example, we know that public procurement procedures are usually very lengthy. In this case, when we talk about an exceptional threat to national security, they can be apply some faster procedures, without going through certain rules. This is justified by the need to guarantee security, “said Eltai, professor at TSPMI.
Therefore, it is possible to understand in part why some atypical measures and additional situations of intimidation or intimidation are being taken. The minister is apparently doing it. This is how it works both in communication with the media and with other state institutions, you need quick solutions, you need quick financing, quick human resources, because you are responsible for handling this problem ”, continued T. Janeliūnas.
Explaining how the Lithuanian authorities have addressed the crisis of illegal immigrants in the context of security processes, the professor noted that balance is especially important in this regard. In other words, specific state institutions, especially those dealing with security issues, can take full advantage of security techniques and continue even after the threat has ended. Therefore, underlines T. Janeliūnas, a counterweight created by other institutions, the media or certain interest groups, can and often becomes an instrument for balancing threat processes.
“He is not the only interior minister in the country who decides matters. Other institutions, in some cases even the courts, intervene in the balance by asking if a safeguard mechanism is really necessary in all areas or if there is no folding stick. The media also play their role, ”said the TSPMI professor.
According to him, it was the media that became effective participants in the balance sheet. An example of this has been the prohibition of journalists working on the border for some time. This restriction, which caused outrage in the media, was lifted only after outrage was voiced and a blanket demand was made by the media authorities.
“After some uncertainties and protests, the bans on journalists visiting the border area were lifted. Thus, a democratic attempt has been unleashed to question or oppose unjustified security. Because if there are no obstacles or no one doubts some suggestions, then it is really possible to empathize and threaten things that do not necessarily require such atypical measures, ”said T. Janeliūnas.
Evaluating the government’s decisions during the migration crisis, the TSPMI professor said he believed that, despite some exceptions, the balance in security was still being maintained.
“In one case, there may have been an inappropriate attempt to restrict journalists’ right to collect information at the border, and it was withdrawn quite quickly. So the system of checks and balances works quite well with us, and it will continue to work. It will depend on how the various institutions react: the public, the media. Several actors are needed to maintain the balance. One actor – in this case the Minister of the Interior – cannot create this balance, because in this case it has a very high pressure. clear to ensure, to get the green light for quick decisions, ”said T. Janeliūnas, noting that in this case the border and society itself.
Will the authorities themselves stop threatening migrants?
Security, as mentioned, can be somewhat tolerated as long as threatening situations are not controlled. T. Janeliūnas also points to this.
“Security is a process that can only be justified in exceptional cases. As soon as the situation is under control or it is possible to return to standard procedures, you should do so. And if the problem is already solved, then you should not continue to inertly appeal to the same threat, ”said Professor Eltai.
However, this topic is quite sensitive. Where is it and who should set the threshold that the situation that required security processes is already under control. Does the fact that illegal immigrants currently seeking to enter Lithuania are reversed and hardly enter the state mean that the situation that posed the threat has already been resolved? Should measures and increased communication be applied in all respects? Are the aforementioned Afghans, who, based on the ECHR, seek to remain in the country’s territory, continue to be the same existentially threatening practice? Is it an exception, after all, which authorities in the country no longer had to launch the same security process?
T. Janeliūnas also raises questions about this situation that have reached the ECHR. According to him, it is possible that state institutions, which for some time even provided inaccurate information, have exceeded tolerable limits.
“The situation with five Afghans is strange. And here, it seems to me, the authorities have gone a little further by deliberately or unconsciously sharing perhaps incorrect information. Such micro-incidents do not pose a threat to national security to the point that it would be necessary to put into The entire state apparatus is marching, providing misleading information, trying to involve outsiders in this process: lawyers, lawyers, explaining that they pose a threat, ”said T. Janeliūnas, critical statements by A. Bilotaitė about the lawyers who began to represent the Afghans who had entered the country on several occasions.
“I believe that empathy in such cases is manifested, that everything that is not according to our plan, not according to our assured agenda, is an activity invented by or in favor of the opponents,” he said.
“One way or another, this adaptation must be maintained,” emphasized the political scientist.
According to T. Janeliūnas, the Home Office, which avoids threatening techniques, is probably afraid of itself. First of all, because a return to “normal politics” can drive a wedge on the Lithuanian-Belarusian border.
“We just realized that I could only interpret why this case became so exceptional. The authorities apparently fear a possible break in their current system, especially a legal breakdown, because if the ECHR decides that it is not possible to push back those who cross the border illegally into Belarus, Lithuania may have new dilemmas about how to proceed. The current system seems to be working, it has allowed the situation to stabilize in the last month. But if there are cracks, cracks in this order, then we can certainly have a new crisis or a new wave of illegal immigrants. And our institutions would not want that anymore ”, summarized T. Janeliūnas.
No part of this publication may be reproduced without the written permission of ELTA.
[ad_2]
